PDA

View Full Version : Disney foes consider own ballot initiatives - LA Times, 3/25/07



Darkbeer
03-25-2007, 07:29 AM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-anaheim25mar25,1,6745606.story?coll=la-mininav-business

QuikQuote: Agitated by a Disney-backed ballot proposal that would require voter approval for housing projects in Anaheim's tourist zone, opponents have begun mulling ballot proposals of their own.
City Councilwoman Lorri Galloway said Friday she might ask the council to place a rival initiative before voters. Galloway is contemplating an entertainment tax or some other mechanism that would force resort employers to provide low-cost housing for their workers.
Both measures are targeted for Feb. 5.

disneyhound
03-25-2007, 07:51 AM
Got to love those councilwomen/men who are completely blind to the source of the county revenues. Is DL a benefit to the City of Anaheim and Orange County? Walt was so right when he saw/feared his vision ending at the park's burm. Councilwoman Galloway wants to make Walts fear a reality.

Katlovett
03-25-2007, 09:21 AM
Given the extremely overcrowded freeways in that area and the tremendous cost of transportation projects, it seems reasonable to put the burden of providing close housing for low paid employees on the employers so that fewer employees have to commute in from Riverside county or San Bernardino county where they can find cheaper housing. It seems to me that the "Disney-backed ballot proposal that would require voter approval for housing projects in Anaheim's tourist zone" would dramatically worsen the traffic situation by reducing housing availability despite increasing demand, which would abnormally increase rents and home prices, which would force even more employees to live far from their jobs and join the daily freeway commute.

Back when Walt created Disneyland, Orange County was a cheap suburb of Los Angeles, consisting largely of orange orchards, bean fields, berry farms and other agriculture, and it was easy to live close to where you worked. I cannot see Walt saying, "Let's try to get laws passed to eliminate nearby housing our employees can afford! People as poorly paid as our employees can't afford to live anywhere nice, and we don't want a slum near Disneyland! Let them live far away and drive for hours to get to their jobs!"

Katprint

disneyhound
03-25-2007, 10:28 AM
...I cannot see Walt saying, "Let's try to get laws passed to eliminate nearby housing our employees can afford! People as poorly paid as our employees can't afford to live anywhere nice, and we don't want a slum near Disneyland! Let them live far away and drive for hours to get to their jobs!"...

Of course not; Walt "did" witness the eyesore of development that sprung up around DL, hence his real estate purchase decisions for DW.

Anaheim has done a nice job with the resort area to date. Low-cost housing can be built in an adjacent area in the City of Anaheim, accessable by the city bus system. It does not need to be built in walking distance to DL, but outside the resort area.

Walt set high standards, and paid his employees accordingly; far from the reality of today.

Bytebear
03-25-2007, 10:38 AM
But North OC already is slipping into a slum, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim are not exactly considered "high living" neighborhoods. I see nothing wrong with wanting to avoid making it worse than it is. Housing costs aren't being caused by Disneyland. Housing everywhere in Southern California is out of control. It isn't Disney's fault. Anaheim is not an elitist city. In fact it is probably much more affordable than Orange or Costa Mesa, and certainly more affordable than Newport Beach, or Irvine. I personally would not live in Anaheim because of it's issues with crime, and adding more low income housing will not help. They should be requesting Disney to pay it's employees more money rather than trying to lower it's standards to match Disney's low wages.

pisces
03-25-2007, 05:34 PM
This is about favoritism and why one developer can just come in and flout zoning laws.

That one Council woman had a conflict, or inappropriate relationship with the Developer, and that's why she had to excuse herself from the vote.

That's usually how it is. A Developer makes a big campaign donation and gets their project fast-tracked.

Either they have zoning laws to protect against that type of thing, or they don't.

Why is everybody afraid to put these issues to a vote of the people?

Katlovett
03-25-2007, 07:48 PM
Low-cost housing can be built in an adjacent area in the City of Anaheim, accessable by the city bus system. It does not need to be built in walking distance to DL, but outside the resort area.
Unfortunately the reality is that people in southern California tend to drive where they need to go - particularly if they are living out in Riverside or San Bernardino. Certainly I would not want to be on the city buses - or other public transit - after getting off shift after midnight. (Going on shift at 4 or 5 pm = driving during rush hour.)


But North OC already is slipping into a slum, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim are not exactly considered "high living" neighborhoods. I see nothing wrong with wanting to avoid making it worse than it is. Housing costs aren't being caused by Disneyland. Housing everywhere in Southern California is out of control. It isn't Disney's fault. Anaheim is not an elitist city. In fact it is probably much more affordable than Orange or Costa Mesa, and certainly more affordable than Newport Beach, or Irvine. I personally would not live in Anaheim because of it's issues with crime, and adding more low income housing will not help. They should be requesting Disney to pay it's employees more money rather than trying to lower it's standards to match Disney's low wages.
I agree completely - I lived in "Little Saigon" in near Westminster and Euclid back when I was a welfare mom before I became a lawyer.

I would not have a problem with Disneyland taking the position of "Hey, we built our park before this madness" if they had not recently expanded their operations and created additional low income-type jobs. In my opinion, if you help create or worsen the problem i.e. additional low paid employees in need of housing, then you have the obligation to help with the solution.

It would be pretty easy to craft an ordinance that only taxes employers for each employee who is not paid enough to afford housing, and set aside that money for low income housing.


Why is everybody afraid to put these issues to a vote of the people?
Because of NIMBYs. No one wants to live near low income housing, yet they like to eat in restaurants, and shop, and go to movies, and do other things that require employees who are often poorly paid and who therefore require low income housing.

Katprint

olegc
03-25-2007, 08:27 PM
next time you're in line for food at DLAND, and it's been 40 minutes because there is no staff - go think about all the ramifications of low-pay and available labor nearby. and some of these folks work 2 to 3 jobs and live with 2 other families.

Should it be next door to DLAND? probably not. should Disney take some responsibility for planning? you bet! especially with the Microsoft-inspired FUD campaign recently pushed about future plans...

AVP
03-25-2007, 08:30 PM
This is about favoritism and why one developer can just come in and flout zoning laws.No, the developer was asking the city planning commission to allow a change in the zoning to make way for their project. Going through channels to obtain a change in zoning is not flouting. Breaking ground to construct something not allowed withing the current zoning regulations without going through channels is flouting.
That one Council woman had a conflict, or inappropriate relationship with the Developer, and that's why she had to excuse herself from the vote.I don't believe that is the case. Lucille Kring had signed a non-binding letter of intent with the developer of the Garden Walk project to open a wine bar. She has not signed a lease, and the developer of Garden Walk is NOT the same developer that wants to build the residential project.
Why is everybody afraid to put these issues to a vote of the people? I don't think everybody is. Disney, the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and the Anaheim Visitor and Convention Bureau all want to put it to a public vote.

As I see it, the problem is that Disney was unable to purchase the land in question, but still wants to control the way the land will be developed. Same thing happened with Garden Walk - Disney lost the bidding war for that property, and then did everything they could to block that development. Disney wants Anaheim to look a certain way when and if they ever decide to expand the resort, and they are asking the city to make sure that happens.

AVP

Stupid_American
03-26-2007, 06:16 AM
I'd love to take bets on the number of Disney employees that might wind up living in one of these "affordable" units.

"Affordable homes" is usually just a catch phrase to get a developer's project started.

nightdesigns
03-26-2007, 06:49 AM
I really do believe that the City of Anaheim forgets why they really exist. If Disneyland wasn't there, it would just be another town. They probably wouldn't have the Angels or Ducks too. And considering the towns that border them, they probably wouldn't be too far off from Santa Ana. DISNEYLAND made them who they are today.

Bytebear
03-26-2007, 09:28 AM
Disney wants Anaheim to look a certain way when and if they ever decide to expand the resort, and they are asking the city to make sure that happens.

I think Disney lost this battle a long time ago. But seriously, how many Disney employees live near the park? I would guess very few. I would say even fewer take public transporation to work. SoCal just doesn't work like that. If the city, county or state really wanted this to happen, they would give real incentives to using public transportation, or tax breaks for those who reside within a certain radius of their place of employement. This deal isn't about Disney employees. It's about building cheap apartment buildings in Anaheim, which they already have too many of. Low income housing = cheap apartment buildings.

Katlovett
03-26-2007, 09:55 AM
I really do believe that the City of Anaheim forgets why they really exist. If Disneyland wasn't there, it would just be another town. They probably wouldn't have the Angels or Ducks too. And considering the towns that border them, they probably wouldn't be too far off from Santa Ana. DISNEYLAND made them who they are today.
The City of Anaheim existed before Disneyland came. Without Disneyland, Anaheim might be like Orange (not a bad town, bordered by essentially the same towns as Anaheim) or Irvine or even San Jose (approximately the same distance inland). Who knows? Certainly it would be different, but not necessarily worse.

I would also note that even the maligned Santa Ana has its good areas and bad areas, much like Anaheim does.

Katprint

disneyhound
03-26-2007, 10:18 AM
...It would be pretty easy to craft an ordinance that only taxes employers for each employee who is not paid enough to afford housing, and set aside that money for low income housing...Katprint

Why is it the responsibilty of the employer to provide a level of compensation equal to that of the current market-rental-rates?

If you select "Sunny Southern California" as your place to live, not only do you get the great weather, you also get highly inflated property values, and in turn, high rental rates.

Doodle Duck
03-26-2007, 10:39 AM
Oh goody...new 'affordable housing' in the neighborhood...equals more people to complain about the Fireworks.

Disney needs to come with whatever it takes to buy the surrounding land. Period. The area atmosphere is THE most important issue for the future of the resort. Period. Whatever it takes.

AVP
03-26-2007, 11:14 AM
Disney needs to come with whatever it takes to buy the surrounding land. Period. The area atmosphere is THE most important issue for the future of the resort. Period. Whatever it takes.Agreed.

AVP

pisces
03-26-2007, 06:16 PM
Oh goody...new 'affordable housing' in the neighborhood...equals more people to complain about the Fireworks.

Disney needs to come with whatever it takes to buy the surrounding land. Period. The area atmosphere is THE most important issue for the future of the resort. Period. Whatever it takes.


They can't buy land if it isn't for sale.

And the Government can't take over (Eminent Domain) land and then hand it back to Disney.

Off topic: There was a big case, I think it was in Cypress, of that city wanting to buy up land that a big church was sitting on......to allow a Costco, or some other big box, to build there. ---I guess in that case Cypress could make the argument that they needed income tax revenue for city services.....but Anaheim can't really make that same claim. Plus, the Cypress thing wound up in court with a really long battle!

There's really nothing Disney can do if they don't own the surrounding land, except try to make sure zoning laws are complied with by the people who do own it.....which is exactly what they are doing, both with Garden Walk, and this other "Affordable Housing" lot.

They didn't own either of those, and no chance of owning, ....so all they could do was try to make sure nothing inappropriate went in on those spots.

The orginal Garden Walk called for all kinds of weird projects. It seemed to me that there was stadiums, theaters, all manner of housing, etc...I'm talking about the original original original plans going back 3-5 years ago.

The only things appropriate for Garden Walk should be shops and dining, maybe a few time-shares, and hotels.

Katlovett
03-26-2007, 08:47 PM
And the Government can't take over (Eminent Domain) land and then hand it back to Disney.

Actually, they can. State representative Tom McClintock has introduced legislation to prohibit such takings by municipalities in California, but the U.S. Supreme court recently decided a case permitting this in a state where it had not been prohibited. "The public good" can be defined very broadly by the government, which can take almost any property as long as they pay "just compensation" for it.

Katprint

Bytebear
03-26-2007, 09:17 PM
It is scary that eminent domain has come to this. If the city wants more tax revenue, or thinks your little house would be better suited as condos, you are screwed. Makes me want to be a Libertarian. Power to the people!